[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")

• To: 'Karl Waclawek' <karl@w...>, Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:46:58 -0700
• Cc: "'Alaric B. Snell'" <alaric@a...>

> And since this can be done in C++ too, the question now is:
> Which languages (except C and Java) do *not* support the feature
> described above (often called "properties")?

What I object to (no pun intended) is having to write all those stinkin'
set/get methods.  Why can't I just write:

	private, public int foo;	// private data member, public
accessors

which will (tacitly) generate:

	int getFoo() { return foo;}
	void setFoo( int Foo ) { foo = Foo;}

with appropriate calls to super.get/set methods in cases of derived classes.
Then, if I have too, I can override tacit methods by explicitely writing
method bodies.

Okay, Alaric: which language already does this?  A hybrid approach such as
XML Schema + Castor is one (imperfect) approach that's not going to win any
popularity contests on this list.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Semantic web?
• Next by Date: RE: Semantic web?
• Previous by thread: RE: Semantic web?
• Next by thread: Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread